A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CPU generation question



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old July 29th 19, 07:24 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default In America, robots are our only hope.

Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote:
Getting a good display, with the highest resolution+fps,
is the hardest part of any build. The proper size of a monitor
is an interesting question; it depends on how close you want it to be.

There may come a day when everyone will be wearing computer screens;
so you'll have no idea what anyone is looking at.

In America, robots are our only hope;
they must get better, because people are you getting worse.


So are these killer robots, or snack-fetching robots ?

It would be good if the snack-fetching robot could also
weld, because it could work at the car plant all day,
then come home and fetch snacks for me.

Paul
Ads
  #32  
Old July 29th 19, 08:47 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default CPU generation question

Paul wrote:
T wrote:
Hi All,

I got talking to a guy yesterday whilst handing out cards.
He started expounding on how he built his own computer
and from what I saw, he did a pretty good job. He was
able to move 3D graphics in real time.

The thing he was the most proud of was the "generation"
of the processors he picks. I presume he means Intel's
processors.

Now, to me the generation of the processor does not mean a
lot. When building a customer computer, I first find the
motherboard I want and then look at the specs to see what
processor it takes. Then I check my suppliers stock to see
what is in stick and what is the best value for what is
needed. This usually is the current generation and one back.

As far a generation of processors goes, the higher the generation,
the better the power consumption. I haven't seen more than four
cores making any practical difference with Windows. And
multi-threading doesn't seem to matter on Windows after
four real cores (Linux does make a big difference).

As far a performance goes, the big bottleneck it the hard
drive. I adore using NVMe drives ans they make a YUGE difference.
Next would be the memory bus speed. Last of all would be
the generation of the processor.

I go for the motherboard that meets the customer's needs.
To me the generator of the processor is what fits on the
motherboard.

Am I missing something? Does the "generation" of the processor
really make that much difference?

-T


OK, here is a table I found, one where I didn't
have to work very hard.

The number on the right, is "normalized" for frequency.
Why I am doing that, is to see whether the arch of the
processor is magically more powerful than previous generations.

I moved the items around in the table a bit, since a "simple-minded"
classification scheme someone mentioned, isn't exactly right. The
"lead digit" in the model number, isn't the generation. It's
close, but they spread the models around. Really, no method
is a reliable method at this level (and on the Ark web pages
at Intel, Intel has on purpose not put that info in the
entries of the *expensive* processors). And we know that
some devices, like say comparing an IvyBridge to an IvyBridgeE,
they could in fact be different generations. The E,X,EX and
so on, usually got a crusty chipset with spiffy features
missing, and you tended to get that feeling that the
high end stuff came out on a different process or node.

https://cpugrade.com/articles/cinebe...arison-graphs/

223 9900K 5.00GHz Coffee Lake 9th 223/5 =44.6
201 8700K 4.70GHz Coffee Lake 9th 201/4.7 =42.8
189 7700K 4.59Ghz Kaby Lake 7th 2016-17 189/4.59 =41.1
190 9900X 4.40GHz Skylake 190/4.40 =43.2
184 7900X 4.30GHz Skylake 184/4.30 =42.8
182 6700K 4.20GHz Skylake 6th 2015-16 182/4.20 =43.3
155 6900K 3.70Ghz Broadwell 155/3.70 =41.9
153 5775C 3.70Ghz Broadwell 5th 2014-15 153/3.70 =41.4
141 5960X 3.50Ghz Haswell 2013 141/3.50 =40.3
159 4770K 3.90GHz Haswell 4th 159/3.90 =40.8
144 4960X 4.00Ghz Ivy Bridge 2012 144/4.00 =36.0
135 3960X 3.90GHz Sandy Bridge 135/3.90 =34.6
131 2600K 3.80Ghz Sandy bridge 2011 131/3.80 =34.5

But anyway, the message in that table, is for the most part,
innovation stopped around Haswell or so.


And this explains the "near future".

And how the "stall" will be addressed with Sunny Cove.
Sunny Cove will be the next installment of arch wars.

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/m...res/sunny_cove

They have to deliver, or AMD will be all over them from
a public relations point of view.

Intel did release some 10nm CPUs, but they were sold
into the Chinese market.

I expect Intel planned for Sunny Cove to "one up" the Zen2
launch, but they might not be ready.

Desktop parts could be a year away.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14436...-ice-lake-cpus

Paul
  #33  
Old July 29th 19, 10:41 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ant[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 873
Default In America, robots are our only hope.

Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
Getting a good display, with the highest resolution+fps,
is the hardest part of any build. The proper size of a monitor
is an interesting question; it depends on how close you want it to be.


There may come a day when everyone will be wearing computer screens;
so you'll have no idea what anyone is looking at.


In America, robots are our only hope;
they must get better, because people are you getting worse.


Yep. As an old fart, I'm falling apart. Where are the robot helpers to
care for me?
--
Quote of the Week: "I do not believe that the Great Society is the
ordered, changeless and sterile battalion of the ants. It is the
excitement of becoming--always becoming, trying, probing, falling,
resting and trying again--but always trying and always gaining. In each
generation--with toil and tears--we have had to earn our heritage
again." --Lyndon B. Johnson
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org /
/ /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.ma.cx. Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
  #34  
Old July 31st 19, 02:32 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default CPU generation question

On 7/28/19 11:20 PM, Paul wrote:
T wrote:
Hi All,

I got talking to a guy yesterday whilst handing out cards.
He started expounding on how he built his own computer
and from what I saw, he did a pretty good job. He was
able to move 3D graphics in real time.

The thing he was the most proud of was the "generation"
of the processors he picks.Â* I presume he means Intel's
processors.

Now, to me the generation of the processor does not mean a
lot.Â* When building a customer computer, I first find the
motherboard I want and then look at the specs to see what
processor it takes.Â* Then I check my suppliers stock to see
what is in stick and what is the best value for what is
needed. This usually is the current generation and one back.

As far a generation of processors goes, the higher the generation,
the better the power consumption.Â* I haven't seen more than four
cores making any practical difference with Windows.Â* And
multi-threading doesn't seem to matter on Windows after
four real cores (Linux does make a big difference).

As far a performance goes, the big bottleneck it the hard
drive.Â* I adore using NVMe drives ans they make a YUGE difference.
Next would be the memory bus speed.Â* Last of all would be
the generation of the processor.

I go for the motherboard that meets the customer's needs.
To me the generator of the processor is what fits on the
motherboard.

Am I missing something?Â* Does the "generation" of the processor
really make that much difference?

-T


OK, here is a table I found, one where I didn't
have to work very hard.

The number on the right, is "normalized" for frequency.
Why I am doing that, is to see whether the arch of the
processor is magically more powerful than previous generations.

I moved the items around in the table a bit, since a "simple-minded"
classification scheme someone mentioned, isn't exactly right. The
"lead digit" in the model number, isn't the generation. It's
close, but they spread the models around. Really, no method
is a reliable method at this level (and on the Ark web pages
at Intel, Intel has on purpose not put that info in the
entries of the *expensive* processors). And we know that
some devices, like say comparing an IvyBridge to an IvyBridgeE,
they could in fact be different generations. The E,X,EX and
so on, usually got a crusty chipset with spiffy features
missing, and you tended to get that feeling that the
high end stuff came out on a different process or node.

https://cpugrade.com/articles/cinebe...arison-graphs/

223 9900K 5.00GHz Coffee LakeÂ* 9thÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 223/5Â*Â*Â* =44.6
201 8700K 4.70GHz Coffee LakeÂ* 9thÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 201/4.7Â* =42.8
189 7700K 4.59Ghz Kaby LakeÂ*Â*Â* 7thÂ* 2016-17Â*Â* 189/4.59 =41.1
190 9900X 4.40GHz SkylakeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 190/4.40 =43.2
184 7900X 4.30GHz SkylakeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 184/4.30 =42.8
182 6700K 4.20GHz SkylakeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â* 6thÂ* 2015-16Â*Â* 182/4.20 =43.3
155 6900K 3.70Ghz BroadwellÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 155/3.70 =41.9
153 5775C 3.70Ghz BroadwellÂ*Â*Â* 5thÂ* 2014-15Â*Â* 153/3.70 =41.4
141 5960X 3.50Ghz HaswellÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 2013Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 141/3.50 =40.3
159 4770K 3.90GHz HaswellÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â* 4thÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 159/3.90 =40.8
144 4960X 4.00Ghz Ivy BridgeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 2012Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 144/4.00 =36.0
135 3960X 3.90GHz Sandy BridgeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 135/3.90 =34.6
131 2600K 3.80Ghz Sandy bridgeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â* 2011Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 131/3.80 =34.5

But anyway, the message in that table, is for the most part,
innovation stopped around Haswell or so.

It's hard to explain why the top item in the table
is improved. Why the 9900K is better than the 8700K.
Unless the memory on the two systems was quite different
or something. There just isn't the level of detail
to spot a difference. Maybe they're actually
different tech, or the mesh bus setup is different,
or... whatever.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13591...-power-for-sff


Â*Â* Core 1Â*Â* 2Â*Â* 3Â*Â* 4Â*Â* 5Â*Â* 6Â*Â* 7Â*Â* 8
Â*Â* Freq 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 3.6 3.6

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11859...nitial-numbers


Â*Â* Core 1Â*Â* 2Â*Â* 3Â*Â* 4Â*Â* 5Â*Â* 6
Â*Â* Freq 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.3

If I had a Haswell, I probably wouldn't be
feeling too bad at this point.

Â*Â* Paul


Great chart. Thank you! Shows only real difference
is clock speed.

My own system uses a Xeon e3-1245-6 (supports ECC memory) :

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us...apkw=e3-1245v6

And an NVMe hard drive with 2400 Mhz 16 GB ECC memory. It
is over a year old now and it still tickles me every time
I use it. Faster than the dickens.

And I still have to use all 16 GB even with a bunch of programs open
and Fedora, W-7, W-Nein (w10) running in VM's.




  #35  
Old July 31st 19, 02:33 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default CPU generation question

On 7/29/19 12:47 AM, Paul wrote:
DesktopÂ*partsÂ*couldÂ*beÂ*aÂ*yearÂ*away.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14436...-ice-lake-cpus


The braggart told me his home computer was gen 11.
Hmmmmmmmm...

  #36  
Old July 31st 19, 04:13 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default CPU generation question

On 7/28/19 7:26 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
Â*BesidesÂ*IÂ*enjoyÂ*buildingÂ*andÂ*configuringÂ*t heÂ*machinesÂ*toÂ*myÂ*liking.


Fire up a VM and you can play to your hears content, but
nothing beats putting together the real thing.

  #37  
Old July 31st 19, 03:04 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,549
Default CPU generation question

On 2019-07-30 10:13 p.m., T wrote:
On 7/28/19 7:26 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
Â*Â*BesidesÂ*IÂ*enjoyÂ*buildingÂ*andÂ*configuring *theÂ*machinesÂ*toÂ*myÂ*liking.


Fire up a VM and you can play to your hears content, but
nothing beats putting together the real thing.


No need for VMs in my case, My Coolermaster CM690 II case has a built in
SSD hot swap bay built into the top, I have 5 120GB Samsung and
Kingston SSDs on which I can install any operating system and slip on
one and reboot into any OS I want in about 2 Minutes.
At the moment I have the following OSs available.

Windows 10 Insider
Windows 7
Linux Mint 19.1
MX Linux 18.3
Xenialpup 7.5
And naturally Windows 10 1903 on one NVMe 512GB

So you see I have the best of all worlds All running on really fast
hardware and within 2 minutes reach. :-)

Rene


  #38  
Old July 31st 19, 04:02 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default CPU generation question

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:04:59 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 2019-07-30 10:13 p.m., T wrote:
On 7/28/19 7:26 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
**Besides*I*enjoy*building*and*configuring*the*mac hines*to*my*liking.


Fire up a VM and you can play to your hears content, but
nothing beats putting together the real thing.


No need for VMs in my case, My Coolermaster CM690 II case has a built in
SSD hot swap bay built into the top, I have 5 120GB Samsung and
Kingston SSDs on which I can install any operating system and slip on
one and reboot into any OS I want in about 2 Minutes.
At the moment I have the following OSs available.

Windows 10 Insider
Windows 7
Linux Mint 19.1
MX Linux 18.3
Xenialpup 7.5
And naturally Windows 10 1903 on one NVMe 512GB

So you see I have the best of all worlds All running on really fast
hardware and within 2 minutes reach. :-)


With VMs, you can have all of them running at the same time, so
switching between them is nearly instantaneous. Programs running in a VM
stay running when you switch the focus away. I find that to be very
handy.

I always have 4-6 VMs running, and depending on the project(s) I'm
working on, I may have 20-24 VMs running. That's for work purposes,
though. If I wasn't using them for work, I'd probably only have about 4
running. Once you go VM, you'll never ever go back to multiboot.

  #39  
Old July 31st 19, 05:12 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default CPU generation question

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:04:59 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 2019-07-30 10:13 p.m., T wrote:
On 7/28/19 7:26 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
Besides I enjoy building and configuring the machines to my liking.
Fire up a VM and you can play to your hears content, but
nothing beats putting together the real thing.

No need for VMs in my case, My Coolermaster CM690 II case has a built in
SSD hot swap bay built into the top, I have 5 120GB Samsung and
Kingston SSDs on which I can install any operating system and slip on
one and reboot into any OS I want in about 2 Minutes.
At the moment I have the following OSs available.

Windows 10 Insider
Windows 7
Linux Mint 19.1
MX Linux 18.3
Xenialpup 7.5
And naturally Windows 10 1903 on one NVMe 512GB

So you see I have the best of all worlds All running on really fast
hardware and within 2 minutes reach. :-)


With VMs, you can have all of them running at the same time, so
switching between them is nearly instantaneous. Programs running in a VM
stay running when you switch the focus away. I find that to be very
handy.

I always have 4-6 VMs running, and depending on the project(s) I'm
working on, I may have 20-24 VMs running. That's for work purposes,
though. If I wasn't using them for work, I'd probably only have about 4
running. Once you go VM, you'll never ever go back to multiboot.


VMs are good, as long as the emulation is decent.

VirtualBox has poor UEFI support, and cannot really be used
for debugging UEFI problems.

Consequently, for those situations, I have to go back to
physical installs. Which isn't exactly pleasant by comparison.

The BIOS emulations in virtual machine environments, are like
a western town facade. You see a "second floor" on the buildings,
but there is nothing behind the second floor facade. It's empty.
Well, that's kind of what UEFI is like in VirtualBox. Installers
don't do exactly the same thing in the VirtualBox environment,
because the UEFI code isn't "mature". If I try to do a dual boot,
the EFI resources get put in the wrong folders.

The BIOS in one other VM environment was like that, with
legacy BIOS bugs that would bite you in the ass occasionally.
And yet, they were not interested in fixing it. It seems
once a BIOS emulation "doesn't crash", they ship it...
There is no "continuous improvement" model for the
VM BIOS behavior.

As an example of a legacy BIOS bug, when the OS was
considering the "SoundBlaster audio emulation", it
would compute the checksum of some bytes in the
emulated hardware, and get the wrong value. And I
would see, like a thousand times "disabling audio
because checksum is blah blah blah". In other words,
the bug in the emulation caused stuff to fail at runtime.

Paul
  #40  
Old July 31st 19, 05:30 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default CPU generation question

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:12:37 -0400, Paul wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:04:59 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 2019-07-30 10:13 p.m., T wrote:
On 7/28/19 7:26 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
Besides I enjoy building and configuring the machines to my liking.
Fire up a VM and you can play to your hears content, but
nothing beats putting together the real thing.

No need for VMs in my case, My Coolermaster CM690 II case has a built in
SSD hot swap bay built into the top, I have 5 120GB Samsung and
Kingston SSDs on which I can install any operating system and slip on
one and reboot into any OS I want in about 2 Minutes.
At the moment I have the following OSs available.

Windows 10 Insider
Windows 7
Linux Mint 19.1
MX Linux 18.3
Xenialpup 7.5
And naturally Windows 10 1903 on one NVMe 512GB

So you see I have the best of all worlds All running on really fast
hardware and within 2 minutes reach. :-)


With VMs, you can have all of them running at the same time, so
switching between them is nearly instantaneous. Programs running in a VM
stay running when you switch the focus away. I find that to be very
handy.

I always have 4-6 VMs running, and depending on the project(s) I'm
working on, I may have 20-24 VMs running. That's for work purposes,
though. If I wasn't using them for work, I'd probably only have about 4
running. Once you go VM, you'll never ever go back to multiboot.


VMs are good, as long as the emulation is decent.

VirtualBox has poor UEFI support, and cannot really be used
for debugging UEFI problems.

Consequently, for those situations, I have to go back to
physical installs. Which isn't exactly pleasant by comparison.


I have zero experience with VM hosts other than VMware Workstation Pro.
That's what we use for work, so that's what I use for my personal
projects. I'm mostly doing network design and modeling/testing, so I
don't have a need for testing things like UEFI/BIOS corner cases. I
thank you for doing it, though.


  #41  
Old August 1st 19, 05:23 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,756
Default CPU generation question

On 7/31/19 10:02 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

With VMs, you can have all of them running at the same time, so
switching between them is nearly instantaneous. Programs running in a VM
stay running when you switch the focus away. I find that to be very
handy.


Full backup (of the VM) is easy too, with the system disk being a single
file on the host. I recently used this to transfer a VM to a different
host machine, with very little trouble except one bit where I had to
change an IP address in the registry.

How much RAM does your system have?

BTW, I have several VMs for testing (Windows 95, ME, 2000, XP, 7, 10).
One of the Win95 ones actually has IE1 on it.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"God is a divider, not a uniter."
  #42  
Old August 1st 19, 05:50 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default CPU generation question

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 7/31/19 10:02 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

With VMs, you can have all of them running at the same time, so
switching between them is nearly instantaneous. Programs running in a VM
stay running when you switch the focus away. I find that to be very
handy.


Full backup (of the VM) is easy too, with the system disk being a single
file on the host. I recently used this to transfer a VM to a different
host machine, with very little trouble except one bit where I had to
change an IP address in the registry.

How much RAM does your system have?

BTW, I have several VMs for testing (Windows 95, ME, 2000, XP, 7, 10).
One of the Win95 ones actually has IE1 on it.


That's not always the case with virtual machines.

If you're using differencing disks, or if you park
a VM (in effect "sleep it"), then multiple files
can be involved.

With differencing disks, there might be a 20KB file
and a 64GB file with the same root name. If you "lose"
the 20KB file, the 64GB file is "worthless". With
differencing disks, the "big" image file is a
"difference" with respect to the empty small file.
I made the mistake once of grabbing just the
large file, and was later told by the software
how much trouble I was in.

In most cases, your observation is right, but if
you're a "clever individual", your mileage could vary.

The configuration file that goes with the VM, contains
some identifiers. It's possible, if you activate a license
in the VM, that your configuration file needs to be
preserved, with respect to "not getting a Not Genuine message".
So while a lot of times, just slinging around the
big file doesn't take a lot of planning, there may
be situations where you regret not keeping some
other materials. Todd may know something about this.

Paul
  #43  
Old August 2nd 19, 03:46 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default CPU generation question

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 11:23:02 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 7/31/19 10:02 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

With VMs, you can have all of them running at the same time, so
switching between them is nearly instantaneous. Programs running in a VM
stay running when you switch the focus away. I find that to be very
handy.


Full backup (of the VM) is easy too, with the system disk being a single
file on the host. I recently used this to transfer a VM to a different
host machine, with very little trouble except one bit where I had to
change an IP address in the registry.

How much RAM does your system have?


64GB, but before building the current system I was running a pair of
laptops with 16GB each, so I was juggling things back and forth between
them for quite a while. Fortunately, VMware notices but doesn't mind
when you pick a VM up and plop it somewhere else.

BTW, I have several VMs for testing (Windows 95, ME, 2000, XP, 7, 10).
One of the Win95 ones actually has IE1 on it.


Imagine the hassle if you had to boot into each of them, one at a time,
in order to use them. For me, that would be an entirely unworkable
situation.

  #44  
Old August 3rd 19, 04:42 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Jeff-Relf.Me @.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 234
Default Scary UFO Tests.

Someone wrote:
Most applications do not thread worth beans.
I instead put my money towards NVMe drives and fast
memory buses. Now that makes a YUGE difference.


The monitor, graphics card, and monitor arm
are the hardest to get right, I think.

The Apple monitor cost 6000$, and the stand is 1000$.
Compared to that, the motherboard is chump change.

Scary UFO Tests:
http://TestUFO.COM
  #45  
Old August 3rd 19, 04:42 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Jeff-Relf.Me @.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 234
Default FFmPeg ?

Paul wrote:
The resulting 12 movie segments were then joined
via lossless join, at around 150MB/sec.


Using what, FFmPeg ? what are the commandline switches ?
Can it save-off a 1 minute segment from 60 minute video ?

150 MegaBytes/sec ?!
I thought a 26 MegaBits/sec video was a lot.
What was the FPS and resolution ?

If I ran the entire movie through one core,
it would have taken forever.
But that's what the software wanted to do.


Googling " multi-threaded video editor " doesn't look promising;
I doubt video editors use cores efficiently.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.